Why is film considered 'better'?

[Tarkand]

Just some random musing... but this is something that has been puzzling me recently.

You see, I can understand why authors and IP owners wants their property to become movies. Unless it bombs, they will usually make money out of it. Not only that, but it will usually expose your property to a much greater amount of people and will not only make it more profitable, but will often make your name recognizable and thus allow you to start new projects. It's all around good.

I also understand why studios want you to think that movies are the ultimate form of art and entertainment... after all, it is in their best interest for the masses to think so.

What I don't understand is the fan's reaction to it.

Let's face it... most movies adaptation aren't all that great. And even when they are (Most recent Marvel movies, Harry Potter, Lord of the Ring, etc) they still aren't as good as the original work. Geek culture has been spoiled lately, as Comic Book and Geek-Friendly Novel adaptation have been coming out in throng and have been mostly successful... but it wasn't always so and every time a new one is made, there's always a risk that instead of glorifying the subject matter, it will tarnish it (Green Lantern anyone?).

What more, in many case, we are actually paying to be told a story we already know... I mean, if you've read the Lord of the Ring/Harry Potter novels, you pretty much knew exactly what was going on in there, no big surprise or anything.

Yet that doesn't stop most fan to go 'OMG! THERE'S GOING TO BE A HOBBIT MOVIE!' (I'm just taking this one as example... movie bob has been raving about the Avengers for months now for example)...

When you think about it from a purely objective point of view, movies are pretty expensive form of entertainment (From a Time:Cost ratio, compared to book, games, etc) and are just not as engrossing or captivating as the original format.

Why is it that we're not only willing to pay for a story we already know, but are excited about it?

Why is it that when deep, rich and lushly detailed fictional world are crammed into a 2 hours animated/live action package that usually misses all the subtlety and depth of the setting, we throw our money at it instead of being wary?

Have we been conditioned to associating the making of a movie we like as a validation that what we like is good?

 

[DoPo]

Easy, because the movies are one of the easiest medium for entertainment. Anybody from a 5 year old to a 85 year old can both see it with about equal ease - you just stare at a screen. Furthermore, it's easier from time perspective: reading a book takes at least a day, while you can watch a movie for quite a lot less time. Moreover, a movie is out now and mostly there isn't a big plot to follow for quite a lot of time. Comic series, book series, TV series, video game series - they all have lag between instalments. Few movies stretch the plot like that - most are standalone. People are busy, or so they claim, and they don't want their time "wasted". Though they lie on both accounts, they do have a point - a movie's plot and movies in general are simply more accessible.

And since movies are such an universal medium, you can easily use it for advertisement. I don't mean ads (well, not that I don't not mean them either) but just think about it - a movie adaptation of a comic will be seen by both comic fans and non-fans. The former will go to see it because it's a comic adaptation, the latter because it's a movie (also posters, flashyness, big production - all that BS). Then some of the non-fans can be converted (or they might just buy the source material - it matters little) and suddenly, comic books are raking even more money. Replace "comic books" with whatever appropriate.

Even if the movie utterly sucks, there is not bad publicity they say. Besides, the fans will happily try to convince the non-fans that the source material is better and that they should give it a go to see how it differs. A win-win situation. At worst, you get a bad movie which will make people band together behind the source. At best...well you get more people band together behind the source but you also get to make more money off the movies.

 

[pilouuuu]

I think that developers still don't know how to balance story and gameplay and how to take advantage of all gaming can offer: interactivity, multiple paths, multiple endings.

In the future gaming will totally surpass movies in my opinion, but for that developers need innovation and release more than just violent games.

I already believe that TV surpassed movies, because they can convey deeper stories and more complex characters. If gaming follows that path, it can surpass both media too.

 

[Chaosut]

I agree that IP owners would want their work to be turned into a film mostly for money and exposure. But being told a story that we already know is the basis of fiction, real originality is both rare and not always practical. What's important is taking inspiration from previous works of fiction and executing in a way that still feels fresh and engaging, even if essentially there's nothing innovative at a;; about it. Adaptations are probably in a similar territory; yes, they are just the same story and characters that you are already familiar with, but in transforming it into a different medium it can become a different experience of it's own (even if it doesn't always stay faithful to the source material). And even if the actors look different from the illustrations of the characters or the image of them that you've built up in your own mind, it's still interesting to see how they will be developed and fleshed out in a shorter period of time. And film adaptations often generate new interest for outsiders, which can create new fans and potentially bring new life to an IP. I don't think it has anything to do with validation, or not for the most part.

 

[RJ 17]

People are willing to pay money to see a movie that they already know the ending to (from having read the book) for the same reason that gamers don't throw a game away just because they've beaten it: they enjoy the story enough to want to experience it again. The reason most people say "the book was better..." is because while reading, your imagination is the director, cinematographer, sound guy, special effects guy, costume designer, everything. You get to envision the story the way YOU want to, and no one's vision of the story will ever seem "more right" than your own.

That said, however, that's exactly the same thing that makes watching the movie adaptation so appealing: yes you've got your own vision of what the story looks like, but now you get to see a "professional's" vision of the story. Hopefully it will be well made and captivating, something you can immerse yourself into and see some of your favorite characters on the big screen. It's an attempt to translate your mental image of the story into a physical image, and like with all translations, something is usually lost in the process.

PS: Just to be a dick I'll point out that this topic probably belongs in the Off-Topic section.

 

[George_Harvey_Bone]

I think DoPo pretty much nailed the answer in the first reply.

But there are also occasions where the movie is actually better than the source. Blade Runner, The Shining and Ben Hur spring to mind. And, whilst I know many won't agree, Harry Potter is probably the exemplar for me - I find the books utterly unreadable, but the films aren't bad.

 

[DoPo]

The reason most people say "the book was better..." is because while reading, your imagination is the director, cinematographer, sound guy, special effects guy, costume designer, everything. You get to envision the story the way YOU want to, and no one's vision of the story will ever seem "more right" than your own.

True, that is correct, but it's more complex than that. A lot of times the book is better by the virtue of the movie trying to be too unoriginal. It takes the book, cuts out content so it can fit into a reasonable timeframe and goes with it. That makes the movie worse because it feels incomplete. I'm not saying it's incomplete to people who've read the book, it just feels incomplete. I can generally tell if a movie is based on a book, without even knowing beforehand. There are exceptions and in those exceptions I'd agree that the book isn't "better" it may just be "different". Fight Club, for example, is an awesome movie. In fact, I did not know it was a book adaptation until I looked it up - it does manage to truly adapt the story to fit another medium, rather than be a movie.

That said, however, that's exactly the same thing that makes watching the movie adaptation so appealing: yes you've got your own vision of what the story looks like, but now you get to see a "professional's" vision of the story.

In fact this is another reason why movies "fail". Take Joe Average who goes to see a movie based on a book he read. Joe knows what's happening and he's excited, sits down, starts watching and...fails to be captivated by the story. Because he knows what's happening already, it's hard for the movie to engage him. So the only thing Joe has left is compare and contrast his "version" of the story with the director's. Even if the movie manages to tell a good story and manages to handle the transition from the mediums great, Joe would still not truly like it, if he doesn't take this into consideration. Joe needs to be actively engaged to notice that, but instead he's just a passive observer.

All in all the movies are worse often enough. But also it's true that lots of times "The book is better..." is purely a subjective qualifier and because the movie wasn't given a fair chance,

PS: Just to be a dick I'll point out that this topic probably belongs in the Off-Topic section.

Yeah, to be fair I was going to point that out too, but I forgot.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

If the source material is a book, I can see someone going to see the movie version to get a visual representation. In that respect, some authors will absolutely refuse to see the movie adaption of their books because they don't want the movie changing their mental image.
------------
Video game movies I don't think are made with the gamers in mind, which might be one of the reasons why so many of them are horrible.

Gamers who watched DOOM tend to think it's horrible.
Non gamers who watch DOOM think it's not that bad.

Also I know a few people who will go see a movie for the specific purpose of seeing how much the source material has been butchered.